NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSEPH JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2569, 2018-1021, 2018-1091

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:17-cv-00353-BAF, Senior Judge Bohdan 

A. Futey.

______________________ 

Decided: January 12, 2018 

______________________ 

 JOSEPH JOHNSON, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

 AGATHA KOPROWSKI, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
2 JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM. 

Joseph Johnson appeals the U.S. Court of Federal 

Claims’ (“Claims Court”) dismissal of his complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denial of his motions for declaratory judgment. Because the Claims Court 

did not err in dismissing the complaint or denying 

Mr. Johnson’s motions, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On March 15, 2017, Mr. Johnson filed a complaint in 

the Claims Court alleging several causes of action against 

various federal and non-federal individuals and entities. 

The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims Court granted 

the motion. It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over

the discernable allegations in Mr. Johnson’s complaint. It 

concluded that all claims accruing before March 15, 2011 

were barred by the six-year statute of limitations under 

28 U.S.C. § 2501 and that it lacked jurisdiction over 

claims against entities that are not the United States. It 

concluded it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Johnson’s tort 

claims and claims relying on provisions that do not create 

a right for money damages against the United States. It 

concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Johnson’s 

state and common law claims, and that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Johnson’s Civil Rights Act claims because 

they must be brought in a federal district court. 

Mr. Johnson also moved for “Partial Declaratory 

Judgment-Default.” The Claims Court denied the motions, holding that the government had timely moved to 

dismiss before the May 15, 2017 deadline to respond to 

Mr. Johnson’s complaint pursuant to RCFC 12(a)(1)(A). 

Mr. Johnson timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES 3

DISCUSSION

We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction de novo and its fact findings for clear error. 

Coast Prof’l, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.3d 1349, 1354 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). Mr. Johnson bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 

1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We accept his undisputed allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in his 

favor. Id. As Mr. Johnson is a pro se appellant, we 

liberally construe his filings. Erickson v. Pardus, 

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 

The jurisdiction of the Claims Court is set forth in the 

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), but it does not itself 

create a right enforceable against the United States. 

Alvarado Hosp., LLC v. Price, 868 F.3d 983, 991 (Fed. Cir. 

2017). To establish Claims Court jurisdiction under the 

Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a substantive law 

that creates the right to money damages against the 

United States. Id. 

The Claims Court properly dismissed Mr. Johnson’s 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Johnson argues the 

Claims Court erred by dismissing his complaint for failure 

to allege a contract between him and the government 

since his complaint alleges other actions that would grant 

jurisdiction, such as “civil injury and Title III felony.” The 

Claims Court, however, did not dismiss Mr. Johnson’s 

complaint simply because it failed to identify a contract 

between him and the government. It recognized that it 

has jurisdiction over certain non-contract claims against 

the United States and analyzed each of Mr. Johnson’s 

allegations and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction 

over any of his claims. It concluded, for example, it lacked 

jurisdiction over Mr. Johnson’s criminal allegations 

because they arise from statutes that do not create the 

right to money damages against the United States. See 
4 JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES

Alvarado Hosp., 868 F.3d at 991. On appeal, Mr. Johnson 

does not identify a money-mandating criminal statute

against the government that would establish jurisdiction. 

Mr. Johnson also does not identify which civil injury gives 

the Claims Court jurisdiction over his complaint. The 

Claims Court did not err by dismissing his complaint 

because Mr. Johnson failed to allege facts that would 

establish jurisdiction. 

Mr. Johnson also argues the government defaulted on 

April 3, 2017, when it failed to timely respond to his 

motion filed on March 15, 2017. Claims Court Rule 55(a)

provides that the clerk must enter default if the party 

“has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” The government’s response to Mr. Johnson’s complaint, however, was 

not due until May 15, 2017 under RCFC 12(a)(1)(A). The 

government timely moved to dismiss on May 12, 2017, 

and did not “fail[] to plead.” See RCFC 55(a). The Claims 

Court did not err in finding the government did not default or in denying Mr. Johnson’s two motions for declaratory judgment.

We have considered Mr. Johnson’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Claims 

Court is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.